An idea for bipartisan tax reform

Oneuli said:
We'll see. The closest approximation we have for that kind of change was the period between 1933 and 1951 when the GOP was effectively defanged and we did a lot of wonderful things for the nation. But think what was needed to bring about that kind of elevation of political consciousness in this country. That generation that turned its back on the GOP only did so after seeing an utter failure of Republican leadership that puts the current situation in the shade. The three Republican administration that led to the Great Depression gave us widespread crushing poverty, bread-lines, Hoovervilles, etc. The 2008 catastrophe was a lesser version of that, and it wasn't even close to enough to render the GOP inoperative for a generation. I don't imagine Trump's going to do it.
Click to expand...

The roaring 20's gave us crushing poverty and bread lines? How did that work?
 
Oneuli said:
We'll see. The closest approximation we have for that kind of change was the period between 1933 and 1951 when the GOP was effectively defanged and we did a lot of wonderful things for the nation. But think what was needed to bring about that kind of elevation of political consciousness in this country. That generation that turned its back on the GOP only did so after seeing an utter failure of Republican leadership that puts the current situation in the shade. The three Republican administration that led to the Great Depression gave us widespread crushing poverty, bread-lines, Hoovervilles, etc. The 2008 catastrophe was a lesser version of that, and it wasn't even close to enough to render the GOP inoperative for a generation. I don't imagine Trump's going to do it.
Click to expand...

the fact that they will be caught cooperating with Russians to steal the election from the people along with fox and the NRA after recently lying us into a costly war with long term repercussions ( isis and AQ) and then they crashed the world wide economy will kill them
 
cawacko said:
Why not a flat tax where we eliminate all write-offs?
Click to expand...

That kind of tax would constitute a massive increase in effective tax rates on the middle class and poor, even as it amounted to a massive tax cut for the rich. That's a good idea if you think the pressing problem in America today is too little income inequality and wealth stratification. If you think life's gotten too darn rough on the rich and too cushy for the poor, then it's a great change. If, on the other hand, you think we're in the opposite situation, it'll make things worse.

Here's a way to think about the numbers.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

That's a bit dated, but take a look at 2015. As you can see, the average total federal tax rate for everyone (the effective federal tax rate) was 21.1%. So, if you could get perfect tax collection (no write-offs, no dodging) you'd need to set the rate at 21.1% to collect the same revenues. Now, look what that means for each group.

For those in the bottom 20% (the poor), it means their effective tax rate would be 14 times as high as now. For those in the next 20% (the lower-middle class), taxes would jump to over twice what they currently pay. For the next 20% (the middle-middle class), the tax hit would be 50% higher than it currently is. For the next 20% (the upper-middle class), it would still be a rise from 17.9% to 21.1%, which is an increase of about 18% in what their tax bill would be. So, there you have 80% of the population experiencing the change you're calling for as a giant tax hike.... a ruinously large one for at least 60%. Only the upper class would be better off.

For the top 1%-ers, though, it would be a huge windfall, dropping their effective tax rates from 33.3% to 21.1%, which is a decline of about 37% in what they'll owe. So, would you really support a 21.1% flat tax for everyone?

It makes sense the very rich keep pushing this notion of a Flat Tax. If you're Steve Forbes, handed a massive fortune by your father, it's a great idea. For the rest of us, though, it really sucks. The only way it wouldn't absolutely devestate the poor and middle class is to move to a more European-style government system, where the state provides enough of life's basics that it's not a great hardship for people to have little take-home pay (e.g., "free" healthcare, childcare, college, and heavily subsidized public transit, etc.)

That said, we could move to a progressive simplified tax -- that is, keep a progressive structure even as we eliminate most or all write-offs. The vast majority of complexity in the tax code has nothing to do with the brackets, so eliminating those doesn't really help anything. Rather, it's all the special rules to benefit politically useful constituencies (e.g., special tax rules to benefit veterans, farmers, small businesses, churches, and so on).
 
Last edited:
evince said:
the fact that they will be caught cooperating with Russians to steal the election from the people along with fox and the NRA after recently lying us into a costly war with long term repercussions ( isis and AQ) and then they crashed the world wide economy will kill them
Click to expand...

We'll see. For my own part, I don't think enough of the intelligence of the average voter to expect that. I think around 40% of Americans are authoritarian twits who will line up with the GOP no matter what.
 
Oneuli said:
That kind of tax would constitute a massive increase in effective tax rates on the middle class and poor, even as it amounted to a massive tax cut for the rich. That's a good idea if you think the pressing problem in America today is too little income inequality and wealth stratification. If you think life's gotten too darn rough on the rich and too cushy for the poor, then it's a great change. If, on the other hand, you think we're in the opposite situation, it'll make things worse.

Here's a way to think about the numbers.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

That's a bit dated, but take a look at 2015. As you can see, in the average total federal tax rate for everyone (the effective federal tax rate) was 21.1%. So, if you could get perfect tax collection (no write-offs, no dodging) you'd need to set the rate at 21.1% to collect the same revenues. Now, look what that means for each group.

For those in the bottom 20%, it means their effective tax rate would be 14 times as high as now. For those in the next 20% (the lower-middle class), taxes would jump to over twice what they currently pay. For the next 20% (the middle-middle class), the tax hit would be 50% higher than it currently is. For the next 20% (the upper-middle class), it would still be a rise from 17.9% to 21.1%, which is an increase of about 18% in what their tax bill would be. So, there you have 80% of the population experience the change you're calling for as a giant tax hike. Only the upper class would be better off.

For the top 1%-ers, though, it would be a huge windfall, dropping their effective tax rates from 33.3% to 21.1%, which is a decline of about 37% in what they'll owe. So, would you really support a 21.1% flat tax for everyone?

It makes sense the very rich keep pushing this notion of a Flat Tax. If you're Steve Forbes, handed a massive fortune by your father, it's a great idea. For the rest of us, though, it really sucks. The only way it wouldn't absolutely devestate the poor and middle class is to move to a more European-style government system, where the state provides enough of life's basics that it's not a great hardship for people to have little take-home pay (e.g., "free" healthcare, childcare, college, and heavily subsidized public transit, etc.)

That said, we could move to a progressive simplified tax -- that is, keep a progressive structure even as we eliminate most or all write-offs. The vast majority of complexity in the tax code has nothing to do with the brackets, so eliminating those doesn't really help anything. Rather, it's all the special rules to benefit politically useful constituencies (e.g., special tax rules to benefit veterans, farmers, small businesses, churches, and so on).
Click to expand...

Look at the percentage the 1% pays in federal taxes. Look at what they pay in states like California, New York, New Jersey etc. These states rely so heavily on taxing the rich that if even a small handful of them leave the states will have huge holes in their budget.
 
Oneuli said:
We'll see. For my own part, I don't think enough of the intelligence of the average voter to expect that. I think around 40% of Americans are authoritarian twits who will line up with the GOP no matter what.
Click to expand...

It's too bad the average voter can't learn to think for themselves (aka, vote like I do) right?
 
cawacko said:
Look at the percentage the 1% pays in federal taxes
Click to expand...

It's below the proportionate amount of wealth they have, and well below the income gains they've received, but whatevs....


cawacko said:
Look at what they pay in states like California, New York, New Jersey etc. These states rely so heavily on taxing the rich that if even a small handful of them leave the states will have huge holes in their budget.
Click to expand...

Not really.

Meanwhile, every single red state uses funds from the welfare block grant to plug the deficits created by their artificially low tax rates.

Red states start with holes in their budgets. They fill those holes with welfare from the federal government.
 
Oneuli said:
I think anyone who does productive labor is ultimately contributing to society in one way or another. For example, the working poor, although they may not pay income taxes, will pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc., as well as indirectly paying tariffs. Most of the working poor also work for others, rather than themselves, and so they contribute to profits that someone else winds up paying taxes on. In addition, they can contribute in the form of jury duty, voting, military or other public-service jobs, etc.
Click to expand...

What is this moronic meme "the working poor?" If they are working, how are they poor? Liberals love their dumb meme's.
 
LV426 said:
It's below the proportionate amount of wealth they have, and well below the income gains they've received, but whatevs....




Not really.

Meanwhile, every single red state uses funds from the welfare block grant to plug the deficits created by their artificially low tax rates.

Red states start with holes in their budgets. They fill those holes with welfare from the federal government.
Click to expand...

Not really? Sorry those are the facts.
 
cawacko said:
Why not a flat tax where we eliminate all write-offs? Otherwise we will continue to have the government use the tax code to "encourage" behavior they want.

But ultimately there will never be a real bi-partisan effort because it's not possible. The adage "paying your fair share" is a great one because no what the rich pay it will never be enough.
Click to expand...

Although I would support a Flat Tax if it were proposed, the FAIR Tax makes much more sense.
 
cawacko said:
Not really? Sorry those are the facts.
Click to expand...

No, it's you trying to shoehorn in your half-assed bullshit.

Meanwhile, there's not a single red state out there that doesn't rely on funds from the welfare block grant to pad their budget deficits.
 
cawacko said:
What would say Calvin Coolidge did to lead us there.
Click to expand...

He failed to implement the modernizing changes that prevented a repeat performance for so long after the New Deal. What was needed were more banking regulations, more economic regulations generally, and a stronger social safety net. Those Republicans effectively stood aside and let the financiers create a giant bubble, even while they failed to make contingencies for when it inevitably popped. They had a foolish belief in the invisible hand, and the nation paid dearly for that.

What role would you say the Fed played?
Click to expand...

The Fed failed to rein in the banks while there was time. It also, in theory, could have acted more swiftly to ease money supply when the bubble burst, to prevent the subsequent vicious cycle from being as strong an as long. The absence of a lender of last resort meant that when credit markets seized, it was all downhill.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_depression
 
LV426 said:
No, it's you trying to shoehorn in your half-assed bullshit.

Meanwhile, there's not a single red state out there that doesn't rely on funds from the welfare block grant to pad their budget deficits.
Click to expand...

LOL, do a little research race baiter. Read a little. (i know, so much easier to call others racist and just be an overall P.O.S.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top